Comments by gregg228
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 23 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like Candicane asked, which foreign companies and/or how is the PFD fund investing money to profit from this genocide?
Posted on March 4 at 5:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.wps.com/LPG/WVU-review.html
Some data on Liquified Natural Gas -vs LP/Propane and Gasoline re engines etc...
Propane/LP seems kind of problematical at low ambient temperatures. Certainly deserves more research.
Thanks for the info Distant Thunder. I did some research on your comments, and you are not nuts!
On Fuel costs
Posted on March 1 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd like to see all of you who responded so far sit on a panel that would be in power either approve or not approve projects like suggested. Nice to see some common sense.
The suggestion to spend lots of cash to rehash what is common knowlage sounds like a big scam. My guess is the problem is noticed during inversions and primarily caused by combination of drip stoves/oil burners/coal fired plant/cold diesels and wood burners?
Being kind of an outsider looking in(only been up here 3 years), seems like a lot of this kind of stuff going on up here -vs anywhere else in the country. Wonder if were the testing ground for scams?
Posted on February 24 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Having serviced and installed air over, water/ground source heat pumps commercially and residentially in the lower48 I’d have to say to user6244 you may be understating the potential disadvantages and costs associated w/heat pumps up here in the Interior.
To the Author, one or two years of trouble free runtime is no selling point, after 5 or 10 years of trouble free operation then I personally would applaud your system! Your system might end up being a Great example; I would like to see the setup myself.
Ground Source installation in part of Midwest at least was a very hard sell without being subsidized or with promises from a local utility to help pay for installation ,lower electric rates. This is due to very high installation costs as user6244 mentions along with long payback time. If natural gas was available, ground source was not an cost effective option in Midwest unless the utilities jumped with incredible deals.
On the maintenance/service end, Ground Source heat pumps in general can be quite the headache; which means to the end user big dollars in maintenance costs. Many times the problem was poor equipment selection, design and installation. I have personally seen customers request their fairly new GSHP get ripped out in the Midwest, and replaced with what they knew did work effectively. Unfortunately, too often this was due to technicians not having GSHP training and again design/installation issues. A well designed and properly installed and serviced GSHP system could be very reliable and cost effective.
Then there is current availability of major/minor components up here from your manufacturer up here and who has experience servicing?
Enough of the nay saying, there could be a case for Geothermal/Ground source heat pumps residentially in the Interior:
Properly designed and installed (Alaskan Interior/Geological/Arctic conditions considered) ground source HP’s could make quite a bit cost effective sense in new construction, if we had GVEA or the government help pay for install. On a case by case basis, retrofits to older homes mechanical systems could be a great idea too.
There needs to be local accountability, in other words no lower 48’s doing the selling/installation/jobs cheapest and bailing out on us.
If there is a 10+ year bumper to bumper warranty on system, with several local service having trained technicians in GSHP’s.
Green and clean, to some that’s enough.
You get air-conditioning, newer tight homes certainly would benefit. Nice option for older homes too nowadays.
Posted on February 22 at 11:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The comments about manufacturing processes are an important consideration regarding renewable/alternative energy sources! Hadn’t given that one much thought until today. That being said:
Solar Thermal would be the choice for greatest impact on energy consumption for the price of installation, reliability, payback time and maintenance as far as residential applications is concerned in my opinion. Commercially, it’s possible to do quite a bit more. Granted; the solar resource is limited from Oct to end of Feb here in the interior, yet beyond those 4 or 5 months the potential output is great (Solar Thermal).
Power generation from Geothermal like out at Chena Hot Springs is surprisingly older technology although a great idea. If you do research, there’s plenty going on in the Low Level Geothermal /Waste Heat to power area.
We should consider in my opinion funding research in alternative/renewable energy sources impact with this money on standard/typical homes and businesses already constructed - vs. - one time rebate.
On A power ploy
Page 1 of 1
Posted on April 10 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be great to see a true cost of ownership on the power project. The concept is great idea, but if equip is high maintenance or plagued with problems that gets pricy in long run.
Is the Chena Power project partially publically funded or had recieved grants?
On NBC's 'Today' to feature Chena Hot Springs geothermal project